MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585977496 · doi:10.1111/bju.13795

Positive outcomes with first onabotulinumtoxinA treatment persist in the long term with repeat treatments in patients with neurogenic detrusor overactivity

2017· article· en· W2585977496 on OpenAlexaff
P. Denys, Roger R. Dmochowski, Philip J. Aliotta, David Castro‐Díaz, Bertil Blok, Karen Ethans, Tamer Aboushwareb, Andrew P. Magyar, Michael Kennelly

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAllergan
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectQuality of life (healthcare)Urinary systemPost-hoc analysisUrinary incontinenceUrologyInternal medicineOveractive bladderSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether response to first treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA is predictive of long-term treatment outcome in patients with neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with NDO who were enrolled in a 3-year extension study (after a 52-week phase III study) received onabotulinumtoxinA 'as needed', based on fulfilment of prespecified retreatment criteria. This post hoc analysis included patients who received only the 200-U dose during the phase III and extension studies. Data on mean percent reduction from baseline in urinary incontinence (UI) episodes at week 6 after the first treatment were analysed, and the patients were stratified into three response groups: <50% (group 1; n = 33), 50-74% (group 2; n = 23), and 75-100% (group 3; n = 139). The following were assessed: change from baseline in mean percent UI reduction; proportions of patients who achieved ≥50% and 100% UI reduction after each subsequent treatment, and patients who achieved ≥50% UI reduction after all subsequent treatments; change from baseline in Incontinence Quality of Life (I-QOL) total summary score; and the proportion of patients who achieved or exceeded the minimally important difference (MID; +11 points) in I-QOL score. Adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. RESULTS: The majority of the patients (83.1%; 162/195) experienced a ≥50% UI reduction after onabotulinumtoxinA treatment 1. Baseline characteristics were largely similar across the groups. After treatment 1, the mean percent reduction in UI remained consistent in subsequent treatments 2-6 for patients in response group 2 (range: 64.5-83.5%) and group 3 (range: 79.4-88.0%), but increased for those in the low response group (range: 36.3-60.3%). After treatment 1, the proportion of patients who achieved ≥50% reduction in UI episodes was consistent with subsequent treatments 2-6 in group 2 (range: 75.0-100%) and group 3 (range: 87.3-97.1%), but increased in the low response group (range: 48.3-72.7%). Even among those who achieved a low response after treatment 1, 37.9% of patients achieved ≥50% UI reduction in all subsequent treatments. Improvements in I-QOL scores in groups 2 and 3 were consistently 2-3 times the MID. In the low response group, at least 50% of the patients achieved or exceeded the MID with treatments 2-6. AEs were similar across all response groups and consistent across repeated treatments. CONCLUSION: Patients with NDO with a ≥50% UI reduction after their first onabotulinumtoxinA treatment continued to experience consistent improvements in UI and quality of life with subsequent treatments over the duration of 4 years. A <50% UI reduction after first treatment did not necessarily predict low response with subsequent treatments. Thus, these results underscore the importance of attempting at least a second treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA before deeming patients unsuitable for onabotulinumtoxinA therapy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207